On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > Right now I have no enough knowledge to vote in this feature. One thing I > didn't like, and I already mentioned it before, is some of us were waiting > for 9.x to be released some time ago (at least a few months ago I was > preparing some branch of our application and ported it to 9.x, after asking > about release plans) and all of the sudden this feature is introduced and > all sub-frameworks depending on Wicket will have to be adapted. In which way sub-frameworks should be affected? I mean, as far as I understand it, if we disable CSP blocking configuration everything should work "the old way", and that's why I would prefer to keep CSP disabled by default. > Thus in practice the release of 9.x. by itself, with new CSS feature, will > not > bring any immediate value to many users as this will break most existing > applications. > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:34 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > [+] leave as is with .wicket--hidden & wicket-core.css > > > > IMO we should sheep the version which will work as expected > out-of-the-box > > According to my tests `hidden` attribute doesn't work (even `display: > > flex` breaks it) > > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:22, Andrea Del Bene <an.delb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 to vote. I find your concerns legitimate > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:54 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > we have a disagreement on how to style hidden elements in Wicket 9.x. > > > > > > > > Due to the new CSP support we can no longer use inline styling to > hide > > > > elements. > > > > WICKET-6725 introduces new CSS classes and a file wicket-core.css. > > > > > > > > I don't think this is a good approach: > > > > > > > > - it adds a CSS file that is referenced by each page (after Wicket > > doing > > > > fine without it for 15 years) > > > > - the CSS is a mingle-mangle of out-of-date stylings (see > > > > .wicket--hidden-fields) > > > > - it's a kitchen-sink for left-over styles (see .wicket--color-red) > > > > - it introduces a new class naming scheme not used anywhere else > > (wicket--) > > > > > > > > IMHO we should remove that file again (and the required > infrastructure > > > > in ResourceSettings/WebApplication) and just > > > > use the HTML5 "hidden" attribute instead, whenever we want to hide > > > > something (Component, Form, ...). > > > > This "just works" in all browsers and is semantically correct. It has > > > > one caveat when an application's CSS changes the default styling of > > > > hidden elements (see > > > > https://css-tricks.com/the-hidden-attribute-is-visibly-weak), but > > that's > > > > in the responsibility of the application developer. > > > > AjaxIndicatorAppender can just render a CSS class and leave the > styling > > > > to the application developer, nobody will be happy with the default > > > > "red" anyway. > > > > > > > > Thus I'll be starting a vote in the next days with the following two > > > > options: > > > > > > > > [] leave as is with .wicket--hidden & wicket-core.css > > > > > > > > [] use HTML5 "hidden" attribute instead > > > > > > > > This isn't the vote yet, it's just the announcement. > > > > Maybe others see a third (forth?) option or want to raise their > > concerns > > > > first. > > > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Andrea Del Bene. > > > Apache Wicket committer. > > > > > > > > -- > > WBR > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.
